- Decision
- dismissed, 25 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: L N Hughes
- Authority
- Wyre (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6007133
- Application reference
- 22/00612/OUTMAJ
- Procedure
- hearing
- Development
- Outline (access, layout and scale) for commercial units in Class E(g)(ii)/(iii) and/or B8 on a 2.44 ha field, with A6 access
- Site context
- settlement edge, open countryside, TPO
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(2), S5(1)(j)(i), E4(2)
- Development plan policies
- Wyre Local Plan 2011-2031 (2022 partial update) SP1, SP2, SP4, EP8, CDMP3, CDMP4
- Main issues
- character and appearance; suitable location and spatial strategy
Summary
Outline permission for up to 9 m commercial and storage units on a 2.44 ha field at Bilsborrow on the A6 was dismissed after a hearing. The inspector accepted, for argument's sake, the appellant's case on unmet employment need and gave the economic benefits substantial E2 weight. But the scheme would close a valued field gap and views to the Forest of Bowland. That DP3(1) conflict had no clear justification because the harm was not necessary to achieve the benefits, so S5(2) applied and S5(1)(j)(i) failed on the "well-related" limb.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Prior to the hearing I sought written comments from the main parties, with the discussions held on this basis" (DL ¶7).
- Character, DP3(1): CONFLICT. "the field is not a remnant parcel of countryside, but rather a valuable element of the village's historic development" (DL ¶18). "Criterion (3) identifies that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with criterion (1). I find conflict in this regard" (DL ¶27).
- S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL. "I take compliance against S5(1)(j)(i) to be not just the site's own spatial relationship to the settlement of Bilsborrow, against which is it physically well-related due to the extent and positioning of the built form around it, but also how the proposal itself would relate to the surrounding character" (DL ¶40).
- S5(1)(j)(ii) freight and logistics: NOT RELIED ON. The flexible use "means that a development could be delivered on the site from which freight and logistics use … were entirely absent" (DL ¶42; the break is a page footnote).
- E4: CONFLICT. No specific local business need; conflicts with E4(2)(a) and (b) (DL ¶32).
- Plan weight (Annex A ¶2). CDMP3 "is up-to-date, including because it is not materially inconsistent with the Framework Policy DP3 as the relevant national decision-making policy" (DL ¶57).
- Benefits. "even at a reduced level the economic benefits would still be of an extent to which Policy E2 directs that I should give substantial weight" (DL ¶54). Crossings and biodiversity: minor weight (DL ¶51).
- S5(2) and clear justification. "I find this to be the case, which indicates that the site's location outside of the settlement is unsuitable" (DL ¶58). "I do not find the specific and significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside to be necessary to achieve the substantial public benefits" (DL ¶59).
Planning balance
Plan-led, with the Framework as a material consideration (DL ¶56). Unmet need tempers the weight of the spatial-strategy conflict (SP1, SP2, SP4) (DL ¶55), but the character conflict with CDMP3 and DP3 is not tempered. The S5(2) trigger and the necessity test decide it: the harm is neither outweighed nor necessary (DL ¶58–60).
What made the difference
The site's role as an open break in ribbon development along the A6, with views to the National Landscape hills, and a dense layout with a continuous row of 9 m units along the frontage. Even with need accepted in full, the harm was not necessary to secure the benefits. A lower, set-back layout that kept the views, or a local-plan allocation in the A6 corridor, would have been needed.
Transferable points
- DP3(3) "clear justification" read as necessity: harm that is not "necessary to achieve the substantial public benefits" lacks clear justification, and S5(2) then applies (DL ¶27, ¶58–59).
- S5(1)(j)(i) "well-related" can include how the proposal relates to local character, not only the site's physical position next to a settlement (DL ¶40).
- A flexible E(g)/B8 consent cannot claim the S5(1)(j)(ii) freight and logistics route when it could be built with no logistics use (DL ¶42–43).
- E4 does not support general employment development in the countryside without a specific rural business need (DL ¶32).
- A local design policy not materially inconsistent with DP3 keeps full weight under Annex A ¶2, even where the spatial strategy's weight is tempered by unmet need (DL ¶55, ¶57).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3(1) | conflict | dense, up to 9 m commercial frontage closes a verdant field gap and views to the Forest of Bowland; significant character harm (DL 16-25, 27) | |
| DP3(3) | fail | DP3(3) cited (DL 27); clear justification not found - harm not "necessary to achieve the substantial public benefits" (necessity reading) (DL 59) | |
| S5(2) | fail | fails a "should be refused" policy, so benefits likely substantially outweighed; location unsuitable (DL 58) | |
| S5(1)(b) | fail | not shown to be development for rural businesses (DL 34) | |
| S5(1)(j)(i) | fail | unmet employment need assumed; site physically well-related to Bilsborrow, but "well-related" read to include how the proposal relates to surrounding character, which fails (DL 38, 40, 43) | |
| S5(1)(j)(ii) | not-engaged | flexible E(g)/B8 use could be delivered with no freight and logistics, so the scheme does not wholly fall under (j)(ii); E3 compliance left open (DL 39, 41-43); letter says "S5(j)(ii)" | |
| E4(2) | conflict | no specific local business need; not physically well-related or sited having regard to character, criteria (2)(a) and (b) (DL 32) | |
| E2 | benefit | substantial | E2(1)(a) substantial weight; c.94 net local jobs and 6.6m GVA pa (overstated as it assumed office use); 49 construction jobs pa (DL 52-54) |
| E2(2) | benefit | unmet employment need assumed in the appellant's favour (A6 corridor vacancy 1.6%); tempers weight of SP1/SP2/SP4 conflict (DL 35-38, 55) | |
| N6(2) | pass | veteran oak (TPO) protected by condition; refusal reason withdrawn (DL 10-12) | |
| TR6 | pass | access, traffic and parking agreed with LHA; two A6 crossings given minor weight as a benefit (DL 48, 51) | |
| F5 | pass | sequential test passed, no exception test needed (DL 49) | |
| Transitional(2) | accord | CDMP3 "not materially inconsistent" with DP3, so up to date (DL 57, fn8) | |
| S3 | not-engaged | S3(1)(c) quoted; no presumption overrides the conflict with CDMP3 and DP3 (DL 56-57) |
Key facts
- Bilsborrow is a Main Rural Settlement; LP gives 1.9 ha of employment growth across all ten such settlements; the site alone is 2.44 ha (DL 28)
- Site outside the settlement boundary in the Countryside Area, between the A6 and the elevated West Coast main line (DL 9, 29)
- LVIA (Pegasus) found moderate landscape effects; inspector found worse visual effects, including major and lasting harm from the PRoW and the southern lane (DL 15, 22-24)
- Wyre vacancy 3.7%, A6 corridor 1.6% (appellant); need accepted for argument only ("what if" approach) (DL 37-38, 50)
- Office use removed by condition at appeal; access plans Rev E accepted; three of five refusal reasons fell away (DL 2-4)
- Hearing held virtually after short-notice postponement (DL 6); signed UU dated 7 Sep 2026 (Annex B)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.